Category Archives: Energy

To understand the nature of the problem discussed in my last post, it is instructive to examine the story of coal ash in greater detail. Scientists have known for many years that in sufficient doses, coal ash is toxic to human health. The EPA first tried to regulate it in 1978, but a Congressional amendment two years later exempted it from oversight.1This condition would persist until December of 2014 when new rules would require coal ash impoundments to be lined and located away from sensitive areas. Impoundment and landfuls prone to leaking would have to be phased out. However, the EPA did not go so far as to classify coal ash as “hazardous waste”, a designation that would have required far stricter regulation. In 2000 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed stricter federal standards to classify it as hazardous. Their recommendations were met by fierce opposition from the coal industry, electric utilities and members of the Clinton administration. The Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric companies, argued that a “hazardous” designation would force the industry to spend up to an additional $5 billion in cleanup costs. The EPA was compelled to reverse course and issue a notice that coal ash need not be regulated.

In 2002, EPA scientists produced a study on coal ash dumps which revealed that they pose significant risks to human health and the environment. Rather than publicize the results, agency officials decided to redact or simply not release significant portions of their data.

Six months prior to this disclosure, the Kingston spill brought the problem into the national spotlight. 109 environmental organizations quickly pressured EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to respond to the coal fly ash problem. The EPA soon revealed that the United States contained about 300 dry landfills and wet ponds used to store coal ash. Many were unlined, increasing the risk of seepage into groundwater, rivers and ponds. The agency concluded that of the 300, 44 posed a clear and present danger to local communities in the form of severe property damage or loss of life.

“The industry has told us for decades that coal ash is perfectly safe,” said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project. “Now we’re told that some of their ash dumps are so dangerous, the federal government is afraid to tell us where they are. We need to move beyond this ‘see no evil’ approach, and regulate these unsafe practices.”

It required the continued efforts of environmentalists and the power of the US Senate to finally compel the EPA to reveal the locations of the 44 sites. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,argued strongly for the disclosure “so that people have the information they need to quickly press for action to make these sites safer.”

Another EPA study in 2009 concluded that chromium in coal ash is “nearly 100 percent Cr(VI),” a well-established highly toxic carcinogen. A report by Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates in 2011 claimed that contrary to prior estimates, there are actually over 700 coal ash dams, many of which are unlined and unmonitored. A November 2010 Duke University study found that river sediment downstream of the Kingston spill contained 2000 parts per billion of arsenic, 200 times the EPA threshold for safe drinking water. The authors concluded that coal ash waste ought to be classified as a hazardous substance.

And so today, after the largest environmental disaster of its kind in American history and despite numerous reports detailing its potentially lethal impacts, coal fly ash remains unregulated in the United States.2While this was true at the original writing of this article, new regulations were enacted in December 2014.

Government deregulation and secrecy are not limited to the energy sector. In October 2012 Nicholas Kristof, an Op-Ed columnist at the NY Times, brought the hazardous nature of formaldehyde to light. Formaldehyde is a chemical found in everything from furniture to fabric softeners to nail polish and, according to scientists at the publicly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH),”formaldehyde is known to be a human carcinogen.” Despite this critical warning, the American Chemistry Council, on the behalf of the chemical industry, is furiously lobbying Congress to suppress the full 500 page consensus Report on Carcinogens because it would cause “public confusion.”

Startling though it may be, the lack of government intervention is understandable. Politicians have an incentive to kill regulations perceived as being against the business interests of their campaign contributors. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) says that the mining industry which includes Murray Energy, theNational Mining Association, Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources poured more than $2.8 million to federal candidates during the 2012 elections. Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), who sponsored a bill that would have prevented the EPA as designating coal ash as “hazardous,” received $230,000 in mining industry contributions, more than any other federal candidate.

Even when regulations are in place, federal agencies cannot always be trusted to enforce them. In the 1960’s the Atomic Energy Commission, which had been charged with both promoting and regulating the atomic energy industry, became riddled with internal conflicts of interest. Business considerations came to trump regulatory requirements to such an extraordinary extent that Congress decided to abolish the agency.

More recently the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating offshore oil drilling, became so cozy with the industry it was supposed to regulate that it literally let the American Petroleum Institute write its own regulatory rules. Instead of acting as a watchdog of the public interest, the MMS referred to members of the oil industry as their “clients” and “partners.” Environmental reviews were often waived altogether. In the end, the lack of adequate safety standards contributed to the explosion of Deepwater Horizon, a catastrophe that killed 11 workers and polluted the Gulf of Mexico for three months.

The United States has a supposed remedy to this problem – a piece of legislation that grants the public the right to access federal agency records. In the next article, I will demonstrate how the promise of this right often goes unmet.

This condition would persist until December of 2014 when new rules would require coal ash impoundments to be lined and located away from sensitive areas. Impoundment and landfuls prone to leaking would have to be phased out. However, the EPA did not go so far as to classify coal ash as “hazardous waste”, a designation that would have required far stricter regulation.

2.

↑

While this was true at the original writing of this article, new regulations were enacted in December 2014.

In the early morning hours of December 22, 2008, a dike separating 5.4 million cubic yards of coal combustion waste product from the outside world breached. The toxic sludge flowed out like a river, moving its way through a local Tennessee community and into a nearby waterway. The magnitude of the spill was unprecedented. It could have filled a container with a base the size of a football field to a height of 370 stories, or an amount 101 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The slurry pushed with enough strength to sweep one resident’s home entirely off its foundation.

Yet in many ways the Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, was typical. As with most coal burning plants, its combustion process releases a gas of fine particles known as fly ash. In large enough quantities fly ash, which contains a blend of metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and thallium among others, is toxic. It can cause cancer, kidney problems, and nervous-system diseases among other ailments.

Some coal ash is recycled for other uses. The rest is mixed with a fluid transforming it into a metallic gray coal fly ash slurry. With nowhere else to put it, the Kingston plant dug gigantic holes into the earth and deposited the sludge there. The only thing separating the solid waste containment pond from the outside world was an earthen wall, that is, until the wall ruptured.

While the spill itself was devastating (and preventable), one resident, Deanna Copeland expressed an even greater worry. “Our concern is, what happens if this liquid dries out?” Ms. Copeland said. “There are huge health concerns. It’s going to get in our house. We’re going to breathe it in. It would be like walking through a dust bowl, and we don’t know what’s in the dust.”

While residents and many emergency officials were ignorant of the dust’s effects, government scientists were not. They had previously conducted research on coal fly ash and were well aware of its effects on human health. And yet on this December day, just hours before Christmas, the victims of this tragedy were kept completely in the dark, denied access to the government studies that could have potentially saved their lives.

The Kingston calamity raises two important questions. First, given a long history of leaks at the plant, why weren’t sufficient regulations in place to prevent the accident? Second, under what possible justification were victims denied basic information about their exposure risk?

The answers to those questions expose a disconnect between government scientists and a public that requires access to their conclusions. The culture of deregulation and secrecy is not unique to the Kingston plant, or even to the energy industry in general. Instead, we find in America an epidemic of ignorance and denial that spans across sectors, affecting each and every one of us.

In the forthcoming series of articles, I expose the circumstances that led to the Kingston calamity and provide numerous examples of how similar practices in other industries continue to endanger human health. Despite the Freedom of Information Act, which grants Americans access to government memos and reports, I will show how scientists are still routinely silenced and their studies are often redacted. Numerous examples of industry being favored over public safety will be provided. Finally, I will present evidence that suggests this problem has only worsened during the Obama administration before offering potential solutions.

In the course of traveling through life, I occasionally intersect with others as passionate as I am about our world’s climate and energy crisis. I love to pick people’s brains and most of the time I can’t stop myself from asking them, “If you had one silver bullet policy in your pocket that you could implement today, what would it be?”

I have received responses ranging from “sign the Kyoto Protocol” (which I perceive as small beer) to “remove corporate money from politics” (which, while probably the correct answer, is wholly unrealistic).

Through these discussions, I believe I have settled (at least for today) on an answer of my own: “promote international development through green growth.” At a time when economic concerns drown out calls for foreign aid, I’m reminded of the saying, “The cleanest power plant is the one you never have to build.” And nowhere is the need for new power as acute as in the developing world.

For some, a Third World green intervention seems like a misallocation of limited resources. Why not just let them build a bunch of coal plants? For others (me included), this need provides real opportunity. In locations where firewood is the the primary sustainable resource, intelligent green investment can be sustainable in its own way – through profitability.

But with hundreds of international initiatives underway to support green growth, it’s easy to suffer from paralysis of too many options. What are the key strategies? Who’s doing what well? Where is there room for improvement?

In the United States, we look to Silicon Valley as the model of an innovation ecosystem. It is there that raw talent, research capability, and venture capital’s business-building power converge to create the planet’s premier environment for the generation of new products and wealth. While Silicon Valley itself has shown little interest in the developing world, their model remains a gold standard and its strategies are easily transferable.

Nurturing talent must start with education. The status quo of having one professor teaching standard courses to 1000 students will not get the job done. Training students in the basics is key, but education needs to become less abstract and more vocational. Let brewing beer be a study in chemistry. Let cows be a study in biology. If HP cannot offer copying equipment to parts of Africa due to a lack of qualified technicians, as was recently the case, teach technology to match the need.

Then, for research to be effective the world must work together. China and the United States are behemoths, and science agencies like the US’s National Science Foundation offer much in the way of support. Africa, however, is challenged by having 45 separate, smaller science foundations. Regional agencies must be formed to bring these groups together. If Rwanda relies solely upon its own scientists, it’s going to miss 99% of knowledge generated elsewhere.

Consider General Electric’s ecoimagination, an enterprise they describe on their website as “GE’s commitment to imagine and build innovative solutions to today’s environmental challenges while driving economic growth.” Thus far, their research has proven capable of meeting global needs like lowering carbon emissions, increasing energy efficiency, developing/deploying wind and solar, and maximizing water conservation. GE possesses massive resources, benefits from economies of scale and has a global presence. There’s still plenty of room for improvement, from geothermal investments in Indonesia to new public transport systems in Central America and Asia.

But while technology is the glue between green and growth, solving the R&D problem alone doesn’t mean you have a competitive product. It certainly doesn’t guarantee a valid business model, nor is it necessarily scalable. For instance, a company the size of GE is not optimized to sell solar panels to villages one at a time.

So while nations like Burundi will seldom outperform the science team of a company like GE, that shouldn’t be their role. Developing nations are much better positioned to understand their own needs, constraints and goals. Perhaps they can host franchises that spin-off First World tech to deploy on village-sized scales. Then, the smaller region’s needs can spur local innovations of First World “big box” technologies.

For example, to process coffee, beans must be washed, hulled, polished, sorted, etc. A developing nation relying on its own technology will be priced out of the market by big box technology that scales. But since the final coffee product depends keenly on the details of the processing method, innovations of big tech at local sites can provide an end product neither the First nor Third Worlds could have achieved entirely on their own.

However, research and business can only do so much. If conditions on the ground are not fertile for green growth, roots won’t take hold. Electricity cannot be transported if the government fails to maintain electrical wires. If the state heavily subsidizes coal or oil, green technologies competitive in a free market won’t survive in a rigged one. Without patent protection and sharing of intellectual property, tech transfer will not occur. Agencies like the World Bank can be coaxed into giving their assistance, but they rarely lead. The bed must first be set by gathering global support for investment, e.g. by connecting principle investigators in neighboring countries or by getting the World Bank to fund distributed solar (perhaps by crowdsourcing) in developing markets.

Many of these issues will be discussed in June at the Rio+20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. If representatives can figure out how to link regional science foundations, introduce researchers to businesses (venture capital-style) and direct First World technology to Third World innovations, this might be the silver bullet most worth firing.

It’s obvious that coal, which can get us above C all by itself, is the elephant in the room. Its massive time-bomb potential begs for the rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS), a plea which is unlikely to be answered given the preliminary and unsettled nature of the technology.

Proven oil and gas reserves are also large contributors, with gas being preferable to oil, though not by much. Note that all of these percentages could increase if A) new reserves are found or B) new technology or C) increases in fuel prices (through increased demand perhaps) makes extraction of these fuels less expensive.

Advocates of the pipeline who acknowledge its climate impacts argue that they are negligible in comparison to other sources of carbon and therefore deserve to be ignored. They further argue the pipeline will only ship 500,000-800,000 barrels a day, which is approximately 20 times less than the amount of crude oil the US imports every day.

However, two key points need to be remembered. First, the rate at which carbon is emitted is irrelevant. The total amount is what matters. So even if it were to take hundreds of years to drain the tar sands, the effect would be the same. Second, once the pipeline starts flowing, new technologies and fluctuations in fuel prices could quickly make larger amounts of the tar sands viable. If all were developed, which presently remains unrealistic, then this would be enough to get to C even if coal was removed from the equation.

From this perspective, we have an opportunity to cut off 5% of the remaining pie to C just by saying no to this pipeline, an option we lack with oil, coal, and gas. Getting 5% back for free would be a huge step in the right direction.

I’m happy to announce that my latest Op-Ed has been published in two major newspapers, the Baltimore Sun and New Jersey’s Star-Leger! I’ve placed links to the article below. I chose these two papers because I grew up in NJ and currently live in Baltimore.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, designed to pump unrefined oil tar sands from Alberta to Texas, won a critical victory Friday when the US State Department concluded the project posed “no significant impacts” to the environment. This conclusion is horribly misaligned with reality.

TransCanada, a Calgary firm, intends its XL to move over 500,000 highly pressurized barrels per day through what it calls “the safest pipeline in North America,” faint praise for a company whose existing Keystone pipeline has spilled 12 times in one year. That the 1711-mile long, half-inch thick pipeline traverses fragile ecosystems and public aquifers doesn’t aid matters.

More dangerous, though, is the resource-intensive extraction process. The EPA estimates carbon emissions from tar sand extraction to be 80% greater than average crude. Noted Columbia University climatologist Jim Hansen spoke bluntly of the project, claiming “exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts,” adding, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over.”

But some advocates, including Cindy Schild (Baltimore Sun – “Keystone XL pipeline, bringing oil from Canada, is a step towards the future”, August 22), a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, claim the pipeline is needed to create jobs. Environmental effects aside, this misses the larger point. After the short-term stimulus provided by construction of the Keystone XL, the pipeline locks the US into a long-term dependency on Canadian crude. We will have sent a negative signal to our domestic renewable energy markets all while American energy dollars continue to leak abroad.

Environmental advocates have been vocal in their opposition, staging a two-week sit-in at the White House which culminated earlier this month. The peaceful protest resulted in over 1000 arrests including those of prominent climate scientists. That our nation’s scientific experts have been incarcerated for defending our shared environment is nothing short of an American embarrassment.

To be clear, this decision is out of the hands of Congress. Final approval of the pipeline lies entirely with the Obama administration’s State Department. Instead of striving for a future of crisp, clean, green American energy, the federal government seems desperate to prolong our addiction to finite, filthy, foreign fuels and tar sands are perhaps the dirtiest of the bunch. Their penetration through our American heartland should be staunchly opposed.

At last count, the Star-Ledger article had 1,426 Facebook Likes, 3 Facebook recommendations, and 7 tweets, one Google +1 (I’m not sure this is catching on yet), and 6 comments! Not too bad for a “boring” issue like a pipeline.

Big Oil execs and their political counterparts love to sing the praises of the domestic oil sector. They argue that the industry unleashes “job-creation activity” and will generate up to one million new jobs by 2018, according to the American Petroleum Institute. They argue that increased domestic production will “enhance our energy security” by maximizing the quantity of liquid fuel obtained from “secure” North American sources. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) stated in a GOP weekly radio address, “Tapping our own vast resources will help lower energy costs for Americans, add high-paying jobs to our economy, and strengthen our security for future generations.”

The danger here is that many Big Oil advocates have defended expanded drilling and deregulation in pursuit of jobs and security without realizing that, unfettered, the oil industry will instead pursue its primary goal, profit. In instances where these ideals run counter to each other, “pro-oil” policies intended to create jobs and security can more than just miss their target. They can be directly counterproductive.

Consider a NY Times story published on September 27 (In North Dakota, Flames of Wasted Natural Gas Light the Prairie) which reports that petroleum outfits operating western North Dakota’s Bakken shale field are unintentionally releasing natural gas during the oil extraction process. The industry has claimed that the infrastructure needed to capture the gas is expensive and has chosen to burn it off instead, a process known as flaring. An estimated 30% of all natural gas produced in the state, the annual carbon equivalent of a medium-size coal-fired power plant, is combusted in this manner.

There are no federal regulations against flaring and none are expected any time soon. State governments have greater flexibility, but North Dakota has made no indication that it will act to restrict the process.

Let’s first examine how this fits into Big Oil’s jobs narrative. In the case of the Bakken shale field, petroleum operators have a genuine opportunity to put people back to work creating, transporting, installing, and operating the infrastructure required to capture the available gas reserves. But because collecting these natural gas resources fails to optimize profit, they have opted against it. Now this is not to say that capturing the Bakken field’s natural gas reserves makes the entire enterprise unprofitable. It simply makes it less profitable, and they view this as an unacceptable cost even if it creates jobs.

Then there is the claim that “pro-oil” policies enhance domestic security. In pursuit of greater domestic energy supply, the United States is presently promoting a wide array of risky fossil fuel acquisition projects. The risks are warranted, so the argument goes, because maximizing our domestic supply of liquid-fuel energy is too important to sacrifice.

The list goes on, but the essential point is that Big Oil and its government supporters expect Americans to suffer significant environmental and health burdens in defense of maximizing our domestic energy supply. These are public costs worth bearing, they argue (if they chose to acknowledge them at all), in defense of the greater good. Yet when the North Dakota oil firms are presented the opportunity to absorb their fair share of the cost in defense of our natural gas reserves, they balk.

The case of Keystone XL is particularly emblematic of profiteers’ other tactic, blatant distortion of the facts. Cindy Schild, a refinery manager with the American Petroleum Institute, has defended the XL by arguing that “it will be a part of the nation’s energy future” without which “the oil will be shipped to other countries.” What she fails to mention is that a full three-quarters of the tar sands have already been contracted out to five foreign companies and one domestic, Valero, whose business model is geared towards export.

If politicians are truly concerned with creating jobs and increasing security, then the status quo of coarsely and broadly liberalizing the oil industry must be abandoned in favor of narrowly focused policy goals. Require that natural gas in the Bakken field be collected, not flared. Place a price on carbon pollution, which would level the playing field with other emergent sectors critical for energy security, like wind and solar. Empower the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our water and air as much as our energy supply.

Until then, the fact remains that North Dakota is on fire, energy resources are being squandered, jobs lie fallow, and at least two million tons of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere each year. Big Oil will persist in telling us they are interested in creating jobs and preserving security. If only it weren’t a bunch of hot air.

This question was the first sentence from last Sunday’s NY Times article A Debate Arises on Job Creation and Environment. It’s particularly timely as environmentalists and conservatives/business interests have been battling ferociously over issues like the Keystone XL pipeline, ozone regulations, and the very existence of the EPA. Environmental proponents contend these regulations protect health, business productivity, and a sustainable environment for future growth. Their opponents contend these rules impose onerous business expenses and can lead to lost jobs and even the closure of facilities.

But who’s right? Apparently, no one knows! It’s striking to me that many government regulations are issued, but not followed-up on. From the NY Times article,

“Regulations are put on the books and largely stay there unexamined,” said Michael Greenstone, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “This is part of the reason that these debates about regulations have a Groundhog’s Day quality to them.”

Are the regulations having their intended effect? Are there unintended consequences, and if so, how costly are they? Can the rules be improved?

Rules set far in advance can guide new investments; e.g. when choosing new technology, businesses will choose the greener one even if the initial cost is slightly greater

Preferable in down economies to invest in upgrades rather than sit on cash

But good golly there’s a lot of tit-for-tat. Environmentalists claim that regulation is often the scapegoat for poor economic performance caused by other factors, such as low demand, poor tax and labor policies, and inadequate communication and transportation infrastructure. They argue the costs of regulation are almost always exaggerated.

For example, the electric utility industry warned that amendments to the EPA’s Clean Air Act would cost $7.5 billion and tens of thousands of jobs but studies have shown the cost of the program to be closer to $1 billion and even suggested the law was a modest net creator of jobs by spurring new clean compliance technologies. And while the cement industry projected 13,000 lost jobs and plant closures because of stricter sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide standards, EPA analysis claims the truth lies somewhere between 600 jobs lost and 1300 gained.

Even if the regulations are net beneficial, is implementing them now (i.e. in a down economy) the right thing to do? Business leaders argue that regardless of whichever and whenever regulations are enacted, there must be stability and predictability. They cannot be a “moving target.”

What seems lost in this discussion, as always, is climate change, which I personally believe is the greatest existential crisis than humanity has ever faced (with the possible exception of nuclear proliferation). Its long-term impacts on heat waves, agricultural yields, water availability, ecosystem vitality and sustainability, health, energy demand, transportation infrastructure, losses due to extreme weather, rising sea levels, forced migrations, violent conflict, etc. that will be forced irreversibly on future generations for hundreds to thousands of years decisively tilt the scales towards regulation. Which regulations, however, may yet require deeper assessment.

On Tuesday, August 30 the National Clean Energy Summit was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The second panel of the afternoon was on “Achieving energy security and independence through collaboration and competition” and featured:

The panel was moderated by Kate Gordon, Vice President for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. The full video of the panel discussion may be viewed here. The following is a summary (only a loose transcript) of the panel discussion.

Achieving energy security and independence through collaboration and competition

Dorothy Robyn (DOD): For the Department of Defense, reducing consumption is a life-saving mission for our convoys in Afghanistan. We spend $4 billion per year to power our installations. Also, our domestic installations are increasingly important for executing remote operations. Electricity disruptions can be dangerous. Since DOD is so large, we represent a huge demand coupled with a history of innovation and leadership. Because efficiency and renewables are in our national interests, we will move in that direction.

Danny Thompson (AFL-CIO): In Nevada, we have long sought to diversify our economy. Construction, operation, and maintenance of solar, wind, and geothermal energy facilities is quite attractive to us.

Jon Wellinghoff (FERC): To move our power grid into the future, we need adequate transmission capability from those remote locations where the energy is being

Jon Wellinghoff (FERC): There are some. We’re looking for overall security of the grid and are in conversations with Congress about this.

Kate Gordon: Tell me how business fits into all of this.

Gary Loveman (Caesars): We find that our employees at Caesars value the goal of building better buildings with higher efficiency. We all care about recycling and purchasing food from the right sources. I’m also on the board of FedEx and we’d love to completely electrify our fleet.

Kate Gordon: We’ve talked a lot about electric vehicles at today’s conference. How would an influx of these vehicles affect the grid?

Jon Wellinghoff (FERC): Studies have shown that we have sufficient reserve capacity for 70% of our fleet to be converted to electric vehicles if they charge during off-peak hours. We think with proper information, consumers are very capable of making decisions about when to use electricity. Right now, that information doesn’t exist.

Gary Loveman (Caesars): It seems whenever renewable energy starts to gain momentum, economic vitality rises and demand for it decreases. We’d like to plan our projects without those cycles.

Kate Gordon: (from the audience) Can we actually compete on a global scale without a lot of subsidies and tax credits?

Dorothy Robyn (DOD): Probably not. DOD has shown that new technologies don’t just pop out of the private sector (e.g. semiconductors, aviation). There’s often heavy government R&D, procurement contracts, etc. to jumpstart consumer markets. Often we don’t have to develop these technologies ourselves, but rather act as a catalyst for development. We’re big enough that we can assume the risk of being an early adopter. By contrast, consumer building efficiency improvements are a fragmented market which makes their procurement difficult.

Jon Wellinghoff (FERC): Keep in mind that all energy was subsidized at some point. Gas plants are all rooted in aircraft engines procured by the military. The Transcontinental Railroad was subsidized by Lincoln. It’s in our history and, in fact, essential to making these industries competitive.

Kate Gordon: And we see that as the technologies become mature across the world, those subsidies tend to be rolled back, US fossil fuel subsidies aside.

Danny Thompson (AFL-CIO): I agree that the military will help bring renewable prices down. I also think we must be able to compete internationally with labor and environmental standards.

Gary Loveman (Caesars): We first try to find ways to reduce costs. Convention hall lights are always on. Hotel rooms have the AC cranked too low. All these things add up. Green energy just isn’t close to economical right now. If it gets close, we’d do it even at a little loss for the overall benefit of it. The difference can’t be first-order, though. It must be modest.

Natural gas makes the problem even more difficult. Oil is more expensive, but gas is less expensive than people expected.

Jon Wellinghoff (FERC): Natural gas is the same price everywhere, but electricity isn’t, nor is it uniformly easy to procure.

Danny Thompson (AFL-CIO): I agree with Gary that it’s an issue of price.

Kate Gordon: What do you say to the criticism that the green jobs aren’t really here?

Danny Thompson (AFL-CIO): They are here. They’re here in geothermal and many other fields, but they are real.

Kate Gordon: It’s great to hear what’s possible within DOD, in business, and elsewhere. Thanks!

On Tuesday, August 30 the National Clean Energy Summit was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The first panel of the afternoon was on “Western Clean Energy Efforts” and featured Governors Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Jerry Brown of California, and Christine Gregoire of Washington. The moderator was former White House Chief of Staff and president of the Center for American Progress, John Podesta. The full video of the panel discussion is split in two parts which may be seen here and here. The following is a summary of the panel discussion.

Western Clean Energy Efforts

Governor Jerry Brown: “The sun is to California what oil is to Texas,” and we have a lot more sun than they have oil. These things start small, grow big, and we’re never not going to need energy.

Governor Christine Gregoire: I’m excited because my state of Washington is leading in renewable energy. We’re the 4th largest wind producer in the country, we’re a leader in solar photovoltaics, and we’ll have charging stations for electric vehicles. We plan to map renewable zones and wildlife corridors, and we’re in the process of putting together a Western transmission plan. We’d be very naÃ¯ve to sit back and do nothing simply because we’re in a recession.

John Podesta: On charging stations, I think a lot of people would be surprised that you can now recharge electric vehicles in 20 minutes with the right technology. Governor Brian Sandoval, your state of Nevada leads in unemployment”¦

Governor Brian Sandoval: We understand we have a great opportunity in renewable energy and I’ve been personally visiting solar and geothermal sites. Like Washington, Nevada is also looking at renewable energy zones and transmission. Our state is 86% federal land, so we need to have a very good relationship with the federal government to get this accomplished.

John Podesta: Some people argue your renewable energy targets are too ambitious. How do you respond?

Jerry Brown: I think we can make it. The question is whether we can keep the cost down to make it feasible. The price of solar is coming down, so we’re optimistic. We’re also well-positioned with having some of the most intense solar locations in the world. We’re going to crush the opposition or listen to them companionably depending upon the circumstances. (laughter)

John Podesta: Where the sun shines isn’t always where the people are, so how difficult are the transmission issues for you?

Brian Sandoval: Our office of energy is working on these transmission corridors as we speak. We intend to work with California on these issues.

John Podesta: How are you dealing with larger transmission issues on a regional scale?

Christine Gregoire: We’re looking to wildlife corridors and considering the best locations for each renewable source. Also, if we reach the portfolio standards we’ve set for ourselves, we don’t need to worry about interstate issues. However, congestion remains a problem in our state. We have so much hydropower that we had to tell wind producers to shut down, which means they lose a tax credit. That acts as a disincentive.

John Podesta: Does linking the states help the intermittency problem?

Christine Gregoire: It can. Wind off-season in Washington is on-season in California, for example.

Jerry Brown: A regional grid allows energy to be moved around in a very efficient way. The more we can send surplus to deficit, the better the system becomes.

Brian Sandoval: I agree. In Nevada trying to get to 25% renewable energy by 2025.

Audience question: How do we get renewables on the fast track?

Jerry Brown: We need long-term stable incentives, a sound framework, and appropriate tax policy. Also, we must increase demand, e.g. through the Navy. We also feel that as the effects of climate change becomes more apparent, demand will increase for renewables.

Christine Gregoire: I agree with Governor Brown that need long-term stable incentives. Congress needs to step up. They must continue to invest in R&D.

Brian Sandoval: Agreed. In Nevada, all the interested parties already have a relationship with the BLM [Bureau of Land Management].

Jerry Brown: California has an energy commission which serves as a “one-stop shop” for renewables. It’s good to plan things, but we really need to get things going as soon as possible. I wouldn’t wait on it. We need to do everything we can to get it done.

John Podesta: What’s your strategy to remain competitive in a global economy?

Christine Gregoire: I realized during Copenhagen that the US has ceded its leadership in the field of renewable energy. The importance of this industry is obvious to other nations. Now in Washington, we have some of our companies doing work with Shanghai Electric. We need that export market and the jobs that come with it.

Brian Sandoval: We believe the future of American competitiveness can go through Nevada with manufacturing and generation. We have a partnership with the ENN Group, who spoke earlier. Our goals are aligned with renewables and so we feel we will remain well-positioned to deal with foreign companies.

Jerry Brown: California is bringing in 50% of the renewable energy venture capital in the US. Energy needs will grow as will companies that satisfy them. California has a rich history of creating great companies, like Apple. We can do a lot in our state, including the smart grid. We see many jobs in this.

Christine Gregoire: No, we have to invest. Ours is an innovation economy. For example, in Washington Boeing is building carbon fiber planes. Planes are being flown with biofuels. Our state is thinking of these great new products, but this can’t be done without STEM education.

Jerry Brown: Education is important for green energy, but even more important for citizenship. We especially need to ensure that talented foreign students who train in our universities are more easily permitted to stay.

John Podesta: You are all under huge budget pressures. How’s that affecting you?

Jerry Brown: We’re lowering investments in almost everything, though green energy is being subsidized by rates, private investments, and so on. We’re not keeping pace with our accumulated infrastructure bill. People need to understand that government isn’t an STD to be afraid of. Market fundamentalism is an impediment to smart balance. Look, the private sector has lots of creativity, but we need the right balance with government.

Christine Gregoire: Washington is hurting too budget-wise, but are trying to find ways to save money. One way is by retrofitting schools and using the savings to pay the companies back.

Brian Sandoval: We’re putting solar on schools and powering some by geothermal. We vow to align education with renewable energy.

John Podesta: Are big market pulls like requiring your state to run on a certain percentage of renewables by some year a good plan?

Vice-President Joe Biden gave what I thought was an excellent speech this afternoon at the National Green Energy Summit 4.0. There was a particularly compelling portion of his speech in which he provided historic precedent to defend public investment in science and technology. He said:

You know, this negative argument that we hear all the time is not new to America. There are naysayers in the political leadership who hold the view that government has absolutely no role and should not be setting a vision for the future providing setting seed money for anything.

I would argue that at every juncture they have been proven wrong. Had we listened to those voices back in 1774 private enterprise and the government would not have collaborated to build the rifles with interchangeable parts that were needed to win the Revolutionary War.

Had we listened to those voices in 1843 Congress would never have collaborated with Samuel Morse to build a demonstration telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore unleashing a telecommunications revolution.

Had President Lincoln listened to those voices during the Civil War He wouldn’t have paid private railroad companies $16,00 for every 40 miles of track on the Transcontinental Railroad they laid down.

And if President Eisenhower had listened to those voices in 1957 he would never have invested the $25 million in research in an endeavor called APRA which invented ARPA-NET which became the Internet.

And if President Kennedy had listened to those voices we would have never have reached the moon and reaped the incredible benefits that flowed from that effort.

And I can assure the President and I are not going to listen to those voices and hope to God you aren’t either. Because in the words of President Obama, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

About Me

Hi, I’m Mike Specian. I am currently a AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow hosted at the U.S. Department of Energy. This site is a repository for things that matter to me including science, energy, climate, public policy, and photography from around the world. You can follow me on Twitter, through an RSS feed or by subscribing to email updates below.